Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 0:44:49 GMT -6
The US response to COVID-19 appears to be the dominant electoral issue in the November elections. Countless other issues also compete for voters' attention, and climate change tends to be lower on the political agenda in the US than in Europe. Schroders' Simon Webber argues in BusinesGreen that the election result will be significant for climate change, both in terms of policy and the potential effect on related investments. Given Joe Biden's lead in the polls, investors should consider a Democratic administration as a base case when it comes to valuing stocks in a number of industries. In the case of climate change, the political positions of the two sides are so different that the outcome of the election will be exceptionally important for the investment prospects of the companies affected. So far, the scenario of Biden winning the election has not yet been factored into stock prices, in our view. Detailed plans for net zero emissions Biden's key climate promises are, unsurprisingly, aligned with those of House Democrats, who recently unveiled their own climate plan. Perhaps the most important is for the US to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, in line with the EU's deadline in its "Green Deal" plan. Setting distant deadlines is the easy part. Those deadlines won't be met unless there are short-term goals that need to be met to keep the long-term plan on track. Biden's energy policy focuses on renewable energy, with some measurable near-term goals. These include the installation of 500 million solar panels and 60,000 wind turbines within five years. The plan drawn up by Democratic lawmakers goes into more detail, highlighting the scope of its goal.
Net zero deadlines are already in sight for several industries: starting in 2030, new buildings would need to reach net-zero carbon emissions, with new cars following in 2035 and energy producers in 2040. Agreement on the need Bulgaria Mobile Number List for infrastructure The US trade approach toward China is an area that has attracted bipartisan support in these polarized times. Another issue on which there is significant agreement between the parties is the need to invest in infrastructure. Media reports suggest President Trump is considering a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan to boost the economic recovery from COVID-19. This would largely focus on roads and bridges, with some spending also on 5G networks and rural broadband. Biden's climate policies highlight that infrastructure is crucial in the battle against climate change. Some of the policies are aimed at areas that can reduce future emissions: the goal is 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations by . However, other infrastructure spending proposals also recognize that climate change is already happening, and are aimed at mitigating its effects. Building resilient cities that can withstand wildfires, floods and rising sea levels is part of Biden's plan. This incorporates roads and bridges, but also a green energy network and better water infrastructure.
While these areas would enjoy greater investment under Biden and Democrats' plans, others would lose out. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is part of Biden's proposal. This would represent a clear break from current policies since fossil fuels are a major part of President Trump's base. Will climate change continue to polarize US opinion? The two leading candidates for the US presidency offer a binary choice when it comes to climate change policy. That polarization may not last long, however. Younger members of the Republican Party have been calling on leaders to support greater federal action to combat climate change. It may be that, whatever the outcome of this election, a greater consensus will emerge afterwards on the need for stronger action, even if the policy prescriptions remain hotly debated. The need to prepare for climate change and reduce emissions is something that individual states have long been aware of. California, for example, leads the United States in solar energy, with 18% of electricity generated from solar energy in 2019. And other states can reap the benefits of their position. Simple economics, rather than deliberate climate policy, is seeing states in the stormy Midwest increasingly turn to wind power as the cost continues to drop, leaving wind cheaper than other energy sources.